5

10
15
___________
20
25
19
23
F I L E D
Electronically
03-20-2012:04:25:19 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
1
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2837978
2
3
4
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRIC COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
6
IN AND FOR THE COUNT OF WASHOE
7
8
***
9
ZACH COUGHLIN,
11
Plaintiff,
Case No.: CVll-01955
12
vs.
Dept. No.: 10
13
WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, et al;
14
Defendants.
16
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR ATORNEY'S FEES
17
Presently before the Court are two separate submissions. First is Washoe Legal
18
Serices and Paul Elcano's Motion for Attorney's Fees, fled by Defendants WASHOE LEGAL
SERVICES (WLS'') and PAUL ELCANO on December 27, 2012. Following, on Januar 25,
21
2012, Plaintiff ZACH COUGHLIN filed an Opposition to Elcano's Motion for Attorney's Fees.
22 Subsequently, on February 6, 2012, WLS and Elcano filed a Reply in Support of Motion for
Atorney's Fees. The following day, Februar 7, 2012, WLS and Elcano filed a Request for
24
Submission, thereby submiting the mater for the Court's consideration.
Second, on Februar 2, 2012, Defendants TODD TORVINEN, JON SASSER, MARC
26
ASHLEY, KAREN SABO, KATHY BRECKENRIDGE, and MELISSA MANGIARACINA filed a
27
Motion for Atorney's Fees. Subsequently, on February 11, 2012, Plaintif filed an
28
-1-
5
10
15
20
25
13
1
Opposition to all Motions for Attorneys Fees.
!
Thereafer, on February 21, 2012, the above
2
Defendants filed a Reply in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees. Contemporaneously
3
therewith, Defendants filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for
4
the Court's consideration.
In connection with WLS and Paul Elcano's motion, Defendants seek an award of
6
$1,234.00 in attorney's fees. In connection with the remaining defendants, Defendants
7
seek an award of $1,157.00 in attorneys' fees. In other words, the various defendants
8
seek a total award of $2,391.00 in attorney's fees. Because the Cour dismissed Plaintif's
9
complaint for failure to efectuate proper serice of process, the Cour has not yet
addressed the merits of the complaint.
11
However, afer reviewing the record, including the complaint filed August 11, 2011,
12
it is clear that the complaint was brought or maintained without reasonable grounds or to
harass Defendants. See N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
14
Plaintiff filed a similar complaint in CV11-01896. Both complaints include essentially
the same Defendants and allege the same causes of action against those Defendants.
16
However, the complaint filed in the present action fails to include a shor and plain
17
18
statement of the claim showing that Plaintif is entitled to relief. See N.R.C.P. 8(a).
19 Instead, Plaintif's complaint and the majority of his subsequent pleadings include citations
to irrelevant case law, extended prose and rambling accounts of how Plaintif's life seems
21
to be spiraling out of control.
22
Plaintif, a disgruntled employee, brought both complaints within days of each other.
23
The complaint filed in this action was brought and/or maintained to harass Defendants.
24
Consequently, Defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees. See' N.R.S. 18.010(2)(b).
The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied N.R.C.P. 54(d)(2)(B) as to their motion for
26
atorneys' fees.
27
28
1 Plaintiff re-filed his Opposition on February 22,2012.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2012
In awarding attorney fees, the Cour has discretion to determine what amount is
reasonable:
[I]n determining the amount of fees to award, the court is not
limited to one specific approach; its analysis may begin with any
method rationally designed to calculate a reasonable amount,
including those based on a 'lodestar' amount or a contingency
fee. We emphasize that, whichever method is chosen as a
starting pOint, however, the court must continue its analysis by
considering the requested amount in light of the factors
enumerated by this court in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National
Bank . . . [the advocate's] professional qualities, the nature of
the litigation, the work performed, and the result. In this
manner, whichever method the court ultimately uses, the result
will prove reasonable as long as the cour provides suficient
reasoning and findings in support of its ultimate determination.
Shuete v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 864-865, 124 P.3d 530, 548-549
(2005) (internal citations omitted). The Court has carefully weighed the Brunzelfacors
based upon a lodestar analysis and finds that an award of $2,391.00 in attorneys' fees is
reasonable. See Shuete, 121 Nev. at 864-865. Accordingly, the Cour will enter the
following orders:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Washoe Legal Serices and
Paul Elcano's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Todd Torinen, Jon Sasser, Marc
Ashley, Karen Sabo, Kathy Breckenridge, and Melissa Mangiaracina's Motion for Atorney's
Fees is GRANTED.
DATED this 0 day of March,
SEVEN P. ELLIOT
District Judge
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certif that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Cour by
using the ECF system which sered the following parties electronically:
JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. for MELISSA MANGIARACINA, PAUL ELCANO, KATHY
BRECKENRIDGE, BOARD PRES. OF WLS, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, PAUL ELCANO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WLS BOARD, TODD TORVINEN, WLS BOARD MEMBER
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
BRIAN GONSALVES, ESQ for CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES
GARY FULLER, ESQ.
DATED this day of March,
HEIDI HOWDEN
Judicial Assistant
-4- .